Tale of two Sunday news shows

Face the Nation Jamell Bouie suggested today that the lower early voter turnout among African Americans is not so much a reduction in enthusiasm, but a matter of successful voter suppression by Republicans.

The rest of the Face the Nation pundits seemed to be suggesting that Donald Trump will need to solve a complex calculus equation to get to 270. They believe Clinton seems to have several key swing states in the bag, and are apparently assuming that all early voters are Democrats, because they feel early voting in Florida and Ohio are showing Hillary is likely winning both.

On Fox News Sunday, Karl Rove provided some early voting numbers. According to the numbers he is citing, Republicans are doing better almost across the board, including Nevada (where he said that the GOP has cut into the 2012 results by about 2000). He suggested this morning that Republicans are up about 100,000 in Florida as compared to 2012.  Rove believes that Trump should get to 240 at this point, but needs Florida to get to 269.

Rove also discussed the difference for the Democrats losing the Black voter (where they are over ninety percent likely to vote Democrat) and trying to replace them with a Hispanic voter (who vote about seventy percent for Democrats). They lose approximately 0.9 votes for every Black that doesn't vote, while only gaining about 0.4 votes for every Hispanic that does. In other words, they need about two new Hispanic voters to replace one lost Black voter.

Juan Williams discussed National polls, which he suggests Clinton is leading by around three or four points. Of course, it's hard to imagine someone winning by three or four points nationally and still losing the ECV. Not exactly hard core analysis. But it is what it is.

_______

Personally I am still seeing the same media spinning the same stories in the same way. As for the early voting, it appears that Clinton is likely doing "better" than Trump (which is all that is being reported by many) but is falling far short of the advantages banked by Obama in 2012 (a story only being talked about by a few).  In fact, it would appear in certain key states (such as Florida and North Carolina, Democratic vote is running dangerously behind). But the only state you hear about is Nevada (where Democrats have built a substantial lead similar to what you saw in 2012). The caveat there for Clinton is that polling "includes" those who are voting early. So in spite of early voting, the polling still suggests a close race in Nevada. People have to remember that an early vote is just a vote. This becomes someone who cannot vote on election day.

It's also fair to point out that both candidates are in Michigan and/or Pennsylvania over the next two days. By most accounts, this suggests that these stated are in play (which would be a bad sign for Clinton). Meanwhile the Democratic talking points is that Hillary was always going to campaign in these states (given they have no early voting). At first blush, this makes sense, but I seriously doubt they would otherwise be in these states if they were running six to eight points ahead.

Lastly, I have been seeing television ads here in Minnesota over the past few days from both candidates. This could be a sign that they just have so much money, that they need to find a place to spend it. But there is quite a buzz going on that Minnesota is not quite as far gone for Trump as one might suspect. One poll had this State a tied, so who knows.

May we live in interesting times....